[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/2] dlmalloc: fix malloc range at end of ram

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 09:32:22AM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:59 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 05:53, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 01:49:52PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:54:10PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 14:01, Simon Goldschmidt
> > > > > > <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of address
> > > > > > > range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail as
> > > > > > > mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes in v4: None
> > > > > > > Changes in v3: None
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  common/dlmalloc.c | 4 ++++
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the problem with this patch is that it increases the generic malloc
> > > > > code size ever so slightly and blows up smartweb :(
> > > >
> > > > Ehrm, ok, so how do we proceed?
> > >
> > > A good question.  Take a look at spl/u-boot-spl.map on smartweb and see
> > > if, of the malloc functions it doesn't discard there's something that
> > > maybe could be optimized somewhere?
> >
> > I wonder if we should have a Kconfig option like SPL_CHECKS which
> > enables these sorts of minor checks, which may only fix one board at
> > the cost of code size?
> >
> > Then it could be enabled by default, but disabled on this board?
> 
> For a bigger change, this might be an idea, but for a change that I can cut
> down to 16 or even 8 bytes code size increasement, I don't think having a
> new option would be good.
> 
> Anyway, I just tried at work and I don't get the overflow. Tom, which gcc
> are you using to get the size error? It works for me on Debian 9 but doesn't
> work with Ubuntu (both times, default cross compiler toolchain installed).

I'm using the gcc-7.3 from kernel.org that we use in travis/etc.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190425/8a2f8ce9/attachment.sig>